TL: Radwaste Update for North America (Group 2) 56K SO: Phil Richardson, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: July 2, 1992 Keywords: nuclear power waste disposal summary gp us canada greenpeace reports / ---------- Group 2 "North America" updated 30th June 1992 ----------------------- Canada updated 24th March 92 Canada generates about 15% of its electricity from nuclear power. At the end of 1990 there were 19 operating reactor sites with an installed capacity of 13,000 MW (5). 4 reactors are due for completion by 1993. 17 of the reactors are in Ontario, with one each in Quebec and New Brunswick. They are owned and operated by the provincial government utilities, namely Ontario Hydro, Hydro Quebec and New Brunswick Power. *************************************************************** Policy (1) Nuclear energy in Canada is regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board, an agency of the federal government. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, a federal Crown Corporation, has the mandate to develop and promote nuclear power in Canada. The primary responsibility for management of radwastes in Canada rests with the producers of the wastes. Provincial governments are responsible for long-term security of uranium mine and mill wastes. The federal government is funding the development of a technology for permanent disposal of nuclear fuel. AECB licences sites for storage of radwastes, and publishes guidelines for disposal. The radiological risk to individuals from a waste disposal facility is set at .05 mSv per year. Volumes of waste There are currently (1988 figures) about 165 million tonnes of uranium mill tailings in Canada, estimated to rise to approx. 230 million tonnes by the year 2000. The production of I/LLW is about 10,000 cu m per year, and about 250,000 cu m of LLW has so far been accumulated. For the past 25 years spent fuel has been stored in ponds at the generating sites. In Ontario, where the bulk of reactors are sited, spent fuel is stored in 9 water pools located at each of the 5 reactor sites (Pickering A and B, Bruce A and B plus Darlington 2). Total capacity of all the pools is approx 33,000 Mega grammes (Mg), although at some sites capacity is nearly all used and additional capacity is planned. To date, there are 14,000 Mg of spent fuel in Ontario expected to rise to 27,000 tonnes by the year 2000. Dry storage is also envisaged for future use, using a Dry Storage Container which has been undergoing tests since 1988 at the Point Leprau reactor site in New Brunswick. A test phase is now in progress at Pickering in Ontario. To date, some 600 Mg are in dry storage (6). **January 16th 1992** Ontario Hydro has chosen to hold the spent fuel from all 8 reactors at the Pickering site in dry, on-site stores until at least 2025. The system is referred to as a monitored dry store (MRS) (cf the US version below).It will be developed in 2 phases, each capable of storing over 6000 tonnes of fuel. As CANDU fuel generates much less heat than PWR fuel, an initial 5-6 year pond-cooling period is planned, followed by transfer to the specially designed concrete dry storage casks, which are claimed to be up to two thirds cheaper than equivalent steel containers. Ontario Hydro has targeted Eastern Europe as a potential market for its MRS technology, having submitted a proposal to Hungary last year already (8). L/ILW It is necessary, in the Canadian context, to distinguish between `historic' wastes, ie generated in the past, and `current' arisings. In the past, L/ILW, mostly from uranium conditioning carried out nearby, had been dumped in and around the town of Port Hope and also at Port Granby, both in Ontario, but it has been recognised that the situation is not satisfactory, with up to a million tonnes of material leaching into Lake Ontario. A Siting Task Force has been set up by the Federal Government to attempt to produce an acceptable solution to the problem, involving the construction of a shallow engineered facility. However, the size of the facilities envisaged is far larger than needed to accommodate these wastes, and it appears that it may be proposed to use this site for future arisings from Ontario Hydro's current operations, which have been stored on-site at the Bruce Nuclear Development Site for the last 20 years, in either shallow concrete trenches or bunker/storage building complexes (2). **January 1991** It was announced in local newspapers in the Port Hope, Hope Township and Newcastle areas on January 15th and 16th that the Task Force offices in their communities had been closed, and that the process had been suspended due to lack of funding. According to a Port Hope spokesman, they had agreed to a site within the town if it is technically feasible (3). It appears that following submission of the Task Force's initial report last August, the process has been in a `holding pattern'. The report apparently suggests that the 3 communities, plus another 3 `volunteer communities', were all prepared to accept the waste subject to adequate compensation and engineering studies to show concept feasibility (4). In addition to this Process, AECL hope to develop a shallow facility at their Chalk River laboratory site, where wastes generated on-site and produced by radioisotope processors and users, are currently stored. The storage concept for Chalk River utilises glacial deposits overlying crystalline bedrock. They are currently developing a concept known as IRUS (Intrusion Resistant Underground Structure), designed to provide isolation of the contained waste for at least 500 years. Due to their position in free draining soil, there is need to provide protection from rainfall and snow melt. By 1989 the first stage of licencing of three demonstration IRUS modules had been completed. The next stage, to obtain approval for construction, is underway. HLW In 1978 the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Programme was launched by the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario, in order to assess disposal options. In 1981 another joint statement committed both governments to prior regulatory review and public hearings, before any proposals could be implemented. Meanwhile, AECL was mandated to examine deep disposal in the Canadian Shield. The major effort has been at the Underground Research Laboratory at Whiteshell in Manitoba (1). AECL has carried out a Siting Programme, which aimed to develop methods and techniques for identifying suitable plutonic bodies. Field research has taken place in granite (Atikokan), gabbro (East Bull Lake), and granite at Whiteshell. A large scale drawdown experiment was carried out at Whiteshell to produce a hydrogeological model covering 400 sq km, with more boreholes being drilled and logged in Dec 1988. 3-D models were developed in 1989, with monitoring equipment installed at Atikokan and East Bull Lake. A 600 sq km area was being characterised at Whiteshell in September 1989 and will be checked against predictions of response in the shaft extension. Boreholes are being drilled to over 1000m **June 1990** Following the announcement of an Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP), an Environmental Assessment Panel was set up in October 1989 by the Federal Government, to review the deep disposal concept. The Panel, which is chaired by Raymond Robinson, Executive Chairman of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) includes WS Fyfe, a geologist and the Dean of Science at University of Western Ontario. A Scientific Review Group has also been set up by the Panel. This will conduct a specific in-depth examination of the safety and scientific acceptability of AECL's disposal concept and report its findings to the Panel. Public Workshops will be held in 1990. The final report is expected by 1993. **October 1990** The scoping hearings are being held around the country this month and next, to supposedly allow interested and concerned individuals and organisations the opportunity to make recommendations as to what the Panel should instruct AECL to include in its environmental impact assessment of deep disposal. The initial hope was that the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) would have the Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines issued by February 1991. FEARO is now reporting these won't be ready until probably late spring (2). **June 1991** Following the scoping meetings last year, the Environmental Assessment Panel finally released its draft EIS Guidelines on June 13th and invited comments and submissions by September. The Panel will then finalise the Guidelines and formally submit them to AECL, who will in turn produce the necessary documentation, probably by mid 1992. Public hearings will then be arranged. A final decision is expected in 1995 (6). The proposed Concept involves placing the spent fuel some 500- 1,000 metres deep in granitic rocks of the Canadian Shield and then sealing and abandoning the repository. The repository is planned to be in service by 2025 and take some 40 years to fill. Complete backfilling and sealing will only take place "once general confidence in disposal has been established." It is proposed to monitor the site following sealing for an as yet indeterminate period, maintaining the option to retrieve defective fuel containers (6). Total cost of the disposal facility, transportation and siting is expected to be in the order of $(1990) 8.4 billion. **November 1991** (7) Colin J Allan, an AECL vice president with responsibility for waste management, has told the federal parliamentary committee on Energy Mines and Resources that an EIS is unlikely to be ready for submission until 1993 (a 6 month delay on earlier estimates). Even after approval of the disposal concept by government, still planned for 1995, a 20 year siting and construction phase would then begin. **March 1992** A recent opinion poll has shown that there is still considerable uncertainty and alsrm in Canada about deep radwaste disposal. The poll was carried out for NNA to assess the impact of a major advertising campaign, which is to be intensified in 1992 (9). Sources: 1. NEA Publicity material 2. Greenpeace Canada 3. Nucleonics Week 17/01/91 4. Nucleonics Week 24/01/91 5. IAEA Bulletin 4/1990 6. PD Stevens-Guille 1991; In: Proceedings of The Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel, London April 1991. 7. NuclearFuel 11/11/91 8. Nucleonics Week 16/01/92 9. Nucleonics Week 05/03/92 --------------- United States updated 30th June 1992: Policy: Waste Classification High Level Waste (HLW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF); HLW is generally the highly radioactive material, usually liquid, resulting from the reprocessing of SNF. Reprocessing ceased in the US in 1977, so most HLW now accumulating is SNF. Massive shielding is required during handling and SNF contains high concentrations of transuranic elements. Transuranic Wastes (TRU); These contain radionuclides with ataomic numbers greater than 92 and half-lives greater than 20 years. They result from reprocessing of spent fuel and from fabrication of nuclear weapons. Most TRU wastes require little or no shielding and can be contact-handled (CH), some require remote-handling (RH) and shielding, due to high gamma activity. Low Level Wastes (LLW); these are all other nuclear wastes not included above. They are subdivided into 3 subclasses (see below). Mixed Wastes; These contain both hazardous chemical and low level radioactive materials, in the form of sludges, cleaning solutions, asphalt, paint residues etc. Major sources are nuclear fuel fabrication and weapons fabrication facilities. Although the US stopped sea dumping in 1970, the Departments of Energy and Defense later tried to get licences to dump scuttled decommissioned nuclear submarines at sea, but these were denied following a long process of opposition leading to a final environmental impact statement. The US are also rumoured to want to dispose at sea of 1000s of tonnes of radioactively contaminated spoil, at present in New Jersey, dating back from the Manhattan Project during WWII. A major effort has been mounted in the last year by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to introduce a classification of Low Level Waste to be known as `Below Regulatory Concern'(BRC), covering mildly radioactive items such as laboratory gloves, wipes etc. It would then be possible to dispose of such items in ordinary civic landfill sites. Extensive opposition has been mounted against the proposal. The NRC is currently trying to establish a new consultation process, with a view to reaching a `consensus' (1). L/ILW In 1982, the NRC classified low level wastes into 3 categories on the basis of radionuclide type and radiation emitted. Class A: General rubbish with low activity (gloves, smocks etc) Class B: Those with high activities containing short-lived radionuclides, which require stable waste forms capable of maintaining their physical properties for approx. 300 years. Class C: Those with the highest activitis of radionuclides. They require not only the physical stability of class B wastes but additional measures must be taken at the disposal site to protect against inadvertant intrusion for approx. 500 years. Current NRC regulations also define a fourth class, known as "Greater-than-Class-C", which is much more radioactive and not considered for shallow burial. The average radioactivity concentration in current Greater-than Class-C wastes is about 3x that of military high-level wastes (37). Waste disposal in the early 1900's was usually carried out at the ore-processing site, with little or no regard for the health and environmental risks posed. Waste dumps from radium refining, for example, were found around Boulder, Co. in the 1970's. The earliest disposal sites for low level wastes (and others) were established for wastes from defence and research operations. Until 1962, wastes from commercial operations were also dumped on these federal sites, usually in shallow trenches, as, for example, at the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina; Palos Forest Preserve, Illinois; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee; Nevada Test Site; Hanford Reservation, Washington; Los Alamaos National Laboratory, New Mexico; Feed Materials Production Center, Ohio, and several other smaller sites. Poor practice was the norm and as is now known, widespread contamination of the surrounding areas occurred and will cost billions of dollars to clean-up. Between 60-120,000 cubic metres of military LLW had been dumped at these and other sites by 1990. Prior to 1970, up to 90,000 containers of military wastes were also dumped at a number of sites off both the east and west coasts off the US (37). Between 1962 and 1971, six commercially operated burial sites for non military wastes began operation (Maxey Flats, Kentucky; West Valley, New York; Richland, Washington; Beatty, Nevada; Sheffield, Illinois; and Barnwell, South Carolina). Again, problems of containment were experienced in the shallow trenches used at all of these sites (18). By 1989, some 1.35 million cubic meters of LLW had been dumped at these sites. As of the present time, only 3 of the sites are active, namely Richland, Beatty and Barnwell. Barnwell was originally due to close by January 1993, but State legislators have now approved measures to allow it to remain open until December 1995 for members of the South-East Compact (see below) and June 1994 for others (38). In 1980, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (LLRWPA) made individual states responsible for disposal of their own low level wastes and encouraged the formation of regional interstate compacts. However, when no new disposal sites had been agreed by 1985, the Low Level Radioactive Wastes Policy Amendment Act (LLRWPAA) was passed, which stipulated that states without an operating disposal site, as well as regional compacts, must have access to a suitable facility by 1993. Most proposed designs envisaged are shallow, French-style facilities. States had until December 7th 1990 to show officials at the 3 existing sites that they were progressing in locating their own alternatives. **January 1992** The US Supreme Court is to review the 1985 LLRWPAA, following an appeal by New York that the law infringes its rights by making it responsible for disposing of radwastes within its own borders. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 23rd (27). **June 19th 1992** The Supreme Court has ruled that the law, committing states to "take title" to wastes generated within their borders by 1993, is unconstitutional. Although not affecting the law as it relates to federal incentives payable to states developing their own facilities, and allowing existing sites to raise disposal prices as an aid to volume control, the ruling provides a potential loophole for those states encountering public opposition to siting proposals. It puts the onus of waste management responsibility back on the producers (39). Activities Compact by Compact ------------------------------------- Originally there were 9 compacts, each with a named member state selected to act as host: Appalachian - Pennsylvania Central - Nebraska Central Midwest - Illinois Midwest - Michigan (ejected and replaced by Ohio 1991) Northeast - Connecticut, New Jersey Northwest - Washington Rocky Mountain - Colorado Southeast - South Carolina Southwestern - California 9 States are unaffiliated, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont (see however below). Generators in New York, Maine, Connecticut and New Jersey face being denied access to the 3 sites because of apparent `foot- dragging' (4). Appalachian (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia): -- --------- **August 1991** (13) Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc, selected in 1989 to site build and operate a repository in Pennsylvania, has had its improved site selection plan approved by State authorities. The plan disqualifies all state parks, forests and game lands. Final site selection is currently planned for 1994. **November 1991** (14) Chem-Nuclear say that 25% of the state has now been removed from active consideration, having included coastal floodplains, protected areas and scenic river lands, watersheds of exceptional value and areas with limestone topography within the disqualifying factors. Public meetings have been scheduled for November/December to discuss this first of three scheduled elimination processes. Further meetings will be held in 1992. Central (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma): ------- **October 1991** (15) Opposition has begun following the selection of a site in Boyd County, Neb. as the choice for a repository. Angry residents opposing the dump gave members of a state siting commission a rough reception in Butte. They say the site selected could threaten wetlands in the Nebraska Sandhills scenic area. In April 1992, a judge halted the commissions progress for 10 days to allow the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee, actually funded by US Ecology, time to examine the documents explaining the rationale behind the choice of Boyd County. More recently, state officials who were not involved in the original decision to choose Nebraska as host state, have begun to examine the whole siting issue afresh. There is no deadline as yet by which the stae must approve US Ecolgy's licence application (40). Central Midwest (Illinois and Kentucky): --------------- **January 1991** (3) The Central Midwest Compact has announced the selection of a proposed site for a LLW disposal facility in east central Illinois, near the Indiana border. The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety has proposed Martinsville. 2 years of study have apparently taken place at the site, which is in a rural farming community of 1275 people. The timetable for the facility envisages a start of operations by mid-1993, following license applications due after local hearings in May. A second site was also examined, at Jeff, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Martinsville. However, whereas officials at Jeff vetoed the plan, those at Martinsville supported the proposal. **January 1992** The final stage of the public hearings has begun and is expected to finish in early February. The site is planned to occupy a total of 1,300 acres of land and would be operated by Chem- Nuclear Systems from 1994 (21). **May 14th 1992** A state Senate committee has slashed $18 million from next year's budget for site selection. This is an attempt to force the siting commission to come up with a recommendation about Martinsville following the public hearings. A decision was expected by June, but is now unlikely before August, pending the Supreme Court decision on the "Take Title" issue brought by New York (see above) (41). **19th June 1992** Following the Supreme Court decision on the "Take Title" issue (see above), the chairman of the siting commission has said that a decision about Martinsville will now not be annouced until late September (42). Midwest: (Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and ------- Wisconsin): **December 1990** (5) All wastes from Michigan have been banned from all of the 3 active sites until progress is made in locating a site, following an announcement last week. Michigan, which has been designated as repository state had to drop the last site under consideration because of concern about nearby wetlands. It must now begin again prospecting some 78 possible sites. **July 1991** Michigan has been expelled from the compact due to the lack of progress in finding a suitable site. Ohio has now been designated as host-state. Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North --------- Carolina, South Carolina, Tennesee and Virginia): **November 1991** (16) South Carolina, selected as primary host-state, has been asked by the compact to keep the active dumpsite at Barnwell in operation until North Carolina can open a replacement. Barnwell is due to close by the end of 1992, but a new site could not be ready until at least 1995, thus producing a backlog problem. Some South Carolina commissioners have even threatened to bar waste from North Carolina to highlight the latter's slow progress. State legislation has been enacted to allow Barnwell to remain open to other Compact members until December 1995 and any other stae until June 1994 (38). Southwestern (Arizona, California, North Dakota and South ------------ Dakota): **March 26th 1991** (11) In 1986 US Ecology (USE) began a site selection process to identify potentially suitable sites for development as a LLW facility in California. Ward Valley, 22 miles west of Needles was selected as the primary candidate for the dump in March 1988, with Silurian Valley as an alternative. Following the release in September 1990 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR), considerable concern has been expressed locally. Despite claims to the contrary by the lead State Agency, the Department of Health Services, the so- called `public siting process' which took place between 1986 and 1988 only involved those near possible dump sites. There was no technical questioning regarding the state or national consequences of such a site. The site is planned to cover 70 acres and consist of 5 trenches approx. 100m long. At present the dump's hydrology is under serious question. Serious flooding potential appears to have been largely ignored, as the planned berms may not protect against runoff from a Ward Valley flood into the Colorado River. In 1979 a storm dropped 6 inches of rain in 24 hours, resulting in a flood that killed two people working at Ward Valley. The site is 13 miles from the Colorado which is the source of water for Tucson, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles and the Imperial Valley. U.S. Ecology sank 5 wells to test the depth of groundwater. Their findings indicated that it is roughly 650 feet down. Radioactive tritium was also found between 90 and 100 feet down. There is a an aquifer containing at least 8.7 million acre feet directly below the proposed site. As a result both EPA region 9 and California Region 7 Water Quality Control Board had major concerns in their DEIR comments. At present most states or compacts are having trouble meeting the federally mandated milestones for the 1993 deadline. Yet California is nearly two years ahead of the mandated milestones leaving the Ward Valley site in a dangerous position if federal regulations change. **July 1991** (17) US Ecology have been accused of incompetence in waste site operations at Sheffield, Illinois and at Maxey Flats, Kentucky, by opponents of the site. They have even been denied a permit in North Carolina. **April 9th 1992** The California Senate has announced that adjudicated hearings into the Ward Valley site will be held, prior to any decision to licence (43). The timing of the hearings is not yet clear, but the siting process is likely to be delayed until at least February 1993. **June 1992** US Ecology gas announced that it intends to sue the state over its decision to hold the adjudicated hearings (43). plus: Northeast (Connecticut and New Jersey): --------- Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah and ---- ----- Washington): The site at Hanford, Washington, will remain open after the January 1993 deadline, to be used only for wastes from the Compact. Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming): -------------- The existing site at Beatty, Nevada, is planned to close following the 1993 deadline. Colorado has been designated as host site for a replacement facility. plus: Texas: ----- **February 1991** (9) A state district court in El Paso, Texas, has ordered that all technical siting work conducted by the State LLW agency be stopped and that the Fort Hancock site in Hudspeth County be declared unsuitable for a disposal facility. An appeal has been lodged and work will continue pending its outcome. The Trans-Pecos region, where the proposed site is situated, is the only area in the state where a sizeable earthquake has occurred in human history - the Valentine event in 1931. The site is only 10 miles from the Amargosa Fault. Research in the area suggested that the site was unsuitable, especially in the light of the development of a complex fracture system. This runs parallel to other major northwest trending geological structures in the area, including the Texas Lineament and the Amargosa Fault (19). Water supplies for over 1 million people are also sourced in the area of the proposed site. **January 28th 1992** Members of two environmental groups, one in Texas and one in Mexico, have claimed that the state intends to purchase 7,125 hectares in Hudspeth County on March 1st, to develop a shallow site (20). It would be situated near the town of Sierra Blanca, 32 Km from the Mexican border. They have aslo claimed that talks have taken place with a view to importing wastes from Maine and Vermont. One of the main reasons for abandoning the previous site at Fort Hancock in 1991, was the development of a complex fracture system (see above), running parallel to other major northwest trending geological structures in the area, including the Texas Lineament, which also run through the area around Sierra Blanca. The suitability of the new site is thus highly suspect also. **April 7th 1992** The purchase of the Sirra Blanca site has gone ahead, despite intense local opposition (44). The Mexican government has demanded to be kept informed of developments. plus: Vermont ------- **May 1992** The Vermont LLW Authority is suing the Batelle Memorial Institute, claiming that it supplied innaccurate and incomplete information about the potential presence of wetlands on a p[otential dump site. State law prevents a site being developed within 100 metres of a wetland. Battelle studies of a potential site at the Vermont Yankee nuclear station failed to identify wetlands at an early stage of the process (45). Miscellaneous LLW issues ------------------------ According to a report released in late 1989 by the Office of Technology Assistance, states are pushing for more waste dumps than the nation needs or can probably afford. New compacting technologies have dramatically reduced the volume of waste created by 55% since 1980 and will be decreased by half again by 1993. The report suggested that Congress should seriously consider limiting the number of dumps rather than letting the proposed 17 sites come on line. The report went on to say that many of the proposed dumps would become uneconomical to run due to a lack of enough wastes. Thus statements like that of Michigan's state Rep. Tom Alley at the NRC's March 21st 1992 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste are starting to surface, where other compacts/states "might look for a state such as California to take the Compact's waste on a contract basis." At present the Southwestern Regional Compact Commission, which is composed of Arizona, California, North and South Dakota, has received requests to take wastes from 14 other states outside of the Compact. **November 1991** (12) Costs are predicted to rocket as the new sites come into operation. A panel of executives of companies and state bodies involved in site selection has told a DOE conference that the average price for a new site will average $100 million. ----------------- Miscellaneous Wastes -------------------- **January 1991** 3 mixed-waste sites in Knoxville, Tennessee, have been identified as offsite radioactive dumping grounds for the nuclear weapons complex at Oak Ridge. The material is mainly contaminated electrical equipment. Only research by local people brought the situation to light, and activities are now being suspended (2). A proposed rule has been promulgated by the NRC to allow on-site storage of LLW at the site of production (1). **March 1992** Suggestions by the DOE that the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly plant near Amarillo, Texas, could become a long term waste storage site, have been opposed by the office of the Texas Attorney General. DOE officials had suggested to a Congress committee that plans to dismantle warheads at the site, and store the accumulated wastes, which include plutonium, there for an indefinite period, were not subject to State oversight (46). **May 1992** Kerr-McGee Chemical Cop. has said that it has finalised an agreement to move approx 500,000 cubic yards of LLW from a closed-down factory in Chicago. If the plan is approved by government, the wastes would be transported to a storage facility in Clive, Utah (47). HLW, SNF and TRU Wastes ----------------------- Because reprocessing of spent fuel was halted in 1977, HLW from non-defence sources comprises only a small fraction of that currently awaiting a management solution. More than 95% by volume originated in defence-related reprocessing activities under the jurisdiction of the DOE and is in tank storage at DOE sites. It is mostly a complex mixture of liquids and solids containing in particular, Sr, Tc, I and Cs, together with some U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm. The composition of the waste varies not only from site to site but also from tank to tank. Currently numerous research programmes are in hand to try and develop ways to handle these highly radiotoxic slurries. The main aim is to develop an immobilisation technique, with teams at Savannah River Plant in South Carolina, at the Hanford Reservation in Washington and at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). A Defence Waste Processing Facility is under construction at Savannah River and is scheduled to begin operation in 1992, producing HLW glass. Another vitrification plant at Hanford is due to begin production in 1999. SNF from civilian reactors is currently stored on-site. A rule has been issued by the NRC allowing for the on-site storage of HLW in dry casks for the next 20 years (1). However, the existing pool storage space is insufficient for the volumes likely to be generated over the lifetime of all operational and planned reactors (estimated at approx. 87,000 tonnes). It is planned that SNF will be disposed of in a deep repository. Following numerous legislative convolutions, the Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only candidate for a repository, by means of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act (NWPAA) in 1987. Immobilised HLW is also intended for Yucca Mountain, but may be disposed of in separate parts of the facility (see below for details of Yucca Mountain). In the 1987 NWPAA, Congress also created the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board to advise it and the Secretary of Energy on site characterisation and on issues relating to the handling and transport of spent fuel. The Board publishes 2 reports each year with recommendations and comments. Yucca Mountain -------------- Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been designated as the sole candidate site for HLW and SNF. Nearly $1 billion have already been spent on site investigation studies, but the repository is still no nearer approval, due in no small way to the extensive legal delays and obstacles which the State of Nevada has sought to put in the way of the DOE investigation. Not only have legal delays affected the project, budgetary and scientific wrangling have also taken place. There are as many as 32 known, active faults in the area of the planned repository. One, the Ghost Dance Fault, actually passes right through the site. Controversy exists over whether there is any possibility of volcanic activity i the area in the immediate geological future. It is possible that one nearby volcanic cone, the Lathrop Wells cone, may have been active as recently as 5,000 years BP. The water table is as deep as 760 metres, with the repository planned to be shallower than that, wholly within the vadose zone. Debate continues, however, as to whether the area is likely to experience a rise in the water table in the future. Some geologists argue that there has been considerable water movement in the area in the past, despite its present day arid state. Plans to develop the repository above the present-day water table have also been attacked, with suggestions made that tectonic activity in the area could produce so-called 'seismic pumping', with deep water being forced to shallower depths in a very short time, thereby disrupting the repository and negating many if not all of the site safety analyses (29). Prime amongst these was DOE geologist, Jerry Szymanski, who raised the issue in 1987. The DOE responded by commissioning a study by a specialist panel from the National Academy of Sciences. Current designs envisage over 100 miles of tunnels excavated approx. 1100 feet below the surface, covering an area of nearly 2 square miles. **June 1990** The Secretary of Energy announced in February 1990 that the work at Yucca Mountain conducted thus far, at a cost approaching $1 billion, was not satisfactory, and that the timetable for the investigations was to be extended. The licence application is not now likely to be submitted before 2001, a delay of 7 years, with repository operations not likely before 2010. Nevada has stated that it will block all applications by the DOE to restart testing. **February 1991** A recent draft of the National Energy Strategy and its accompanying legislation would remove Nevada from the environmental review process at the site, allowing the DOE to restart the site specific studies (8). The DOE announced in the summer of 1992 that it was delaying- until fiscal year 1994- one of the major projects associated with the site characterisation, namely the Experimental Shaft Facility (ESF), which is essential to a proper understanding of the site. The delay is due to an enforced budget reduction of $30 million for fiscal year 1992. In its December 1991 report to Congress (28), the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board suggested that DOE was wrong in so delaying the ESF, and that if this occurred, further delays in the revised repository schedule should be expected. Furthermore, it recommended that DOE should produce contingency plans enabling it to proceed with site characterisation despite possible future budgetary uncertainty. As far as legal delays are concerned, the latest case involves permits for water appropriation for surface testing operations. **2nd March 1992** The State of Nevada has granted the final permits to DOE, allowing it to recommence site work at Yucca Mountain (55). **April 1992** The 17 man NAS panel, examining claims by Szymanski (see above) regarding the potential at Yucca Mountain for 'seismic pumping', has published the result of its 2 year study. They have concluded that isotopic evidence from mineral deposits in the area do not support the theory that they resulted from rising groundwater in the recent geologiv past, preferring an origin via percolating rainwater (56). **May 1992** Yucca Mountain programme director, John Bartlett, has suggested that DOE may seek to begin operations earlier than currently anticipated, by only seeking initial licencing for a reduced scale demonstration phase, in the first instance. This would reduce the amount of site characterisation initially required, he said. There are concerns being expressed at the revised cost estimates for the project, announced recently. The latest, icluding money payable to the state of Nevada, puts the total cost of the repository at some $6.3 billion (57). **26th May 1992** The House of Representatives has passed an amendment to the Energy Bill, currently under discussion, which would exempt the project from some state environmental regulations (58). Monitored Retrievable Store (MRS) --------------------------------- In an attempt to alleviate the on-site storage problem, DOE has proposed to develop a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility to accept the excess. This was originally to be sited at Clinch River in Tennessee, near Oak Ridge, but was cancelled in 1987 by the passage of the Act which designated Yucca Mountain. This Act instructed DOE to select a site for the MRS and tied the construction schedule to that of the deep repository. In 1989 the MRS Review Commission suggested that 2 storage facilities be built, one funded by the users (capacity 5000 mtonnes) and one an emergency federal facility (capacity 2000 tonnes). In the same year, the US President established the position of a Nuclear Waste Negotiator, and appointed David Leroy to the post. Currently the plan remains to build one facility only, capable of storing at least 10,000 tonnes. **January 1990** Leroy's office has released its year-end report, describing a proposed 63 step process to be used as a tool in designing any future talks with states and Indian tribes willing to consider hosting an MRS facility or a HLW repository. It is as yet unclear how such offers might affect work at Yucca Mountain (7). Legislation has been proposed that would allow for the establishment of a Monitorable Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility. Currently, no MRS can be opened until a repository is licenced. The Senate bill, proposed by Johnston and Wallop, would remove this linkage (1). The siting process is designed to take place in 3 Phases: Phase I - can take up to six months. Grants of $100,000 are payable for disseminating information and gauging local reaction. Phase IIA - can take up to a year. Grants of $200,000 are payable to enable a community to assess the project. Phase IIB - A grant of up to $3 million is payable to allow basic environmental studies to be conducted and negotiations to begin on accepting the facility. Construction would likely take 2-3 years. **21st October 1991** The Mescalero Apache have applied to the Waste Negotiator's Office for a $100,000 Phase I study grant to assess the suitability of their New Mexico reservation as a site for an MRS (23). **6th January 1992** The Chickasaw tribe from Oklahoma and the authorities in Grant County, North Dakota have applied for study grants for an MRS. (25). **7th January 1992** 4 more applications for MRS siting study grants have been received. They are from Fremont County, Wyo., the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, the Yakima Indian Nation of Washington and the Prairie Island Indian Community in Minnesota. The leaders of the Prairie Island Indian Community say the main reason is that they have been campaigning for over a year to prevent the expansion of a radwaste storage facility at the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant, operated by Northern States Power. State officials have refused to act, so the Indians' government has decided that it might as well get paid for its inconvenience and danger (26). **April 1992** By April 23rd, 19 tribes and counties had applied for Phase I grants, of which 8 had been paid. The Mescalero Apache in New Mexico have received the first Phase IIA grant (49). **15th May 1992** Commissioners in San Juan County in Utah have voted to accept a Phase I grant (50). **2nd June 1992** The Arizona Governor, Fife Symington has rejected the proposal by Apache County to apply for a Phase I grant (52). **28th June 1992** The entire State Legislature of New Mexico is attempting to dissuade the Mescalero Apache from continuing with the siting process. The Apache see the project as a potential way of guaranteeing some kind of future for the younger members of the tribe. They have yet to decide whether to accept a Phase IIB grant (51). The complete list (as of June 1992) is: 1. Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico (Phase IIA grant awarded) 2. Grant County, N Dakota (Project terminated) 3. Chickasaw Indian Nation, Oklahoma (Application withdrawn) 4. Fremont County, Wyoming (Phase I grant awarded) 5. Prairie Island Indian Community, Minn (Phase I grant awarded) 6. The Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma (Application withdrawn) 7. Yakima Indian Nation, Washington (Phase I grant awarded) 8. Apache County, Arizona (Grant applied for) 9. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Tribe, Utah (Phase I awarded) 10.Alabama-Quassarte Tribe, Oklahoma (Grant applied for) 11.Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma (Grant applied for) 12.Tetlin Village Council, Alaska (Grant applied for) 13.Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota (Grant applied for) 14.Akhiok Traditional Council, Alaska (Grant applied for) 15.Apache Development Authority, Oklahoma (Grant applied for) 16.Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma (Grant applied for) 17.San Juan County, Utah (Phase I grant awarded) 18.Ponca Tribe, Oklahoma (Grant applied for) 19.Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma (Grant applied for) Miscellaneous spent fuel ------------------------ **March 3rd 1991** It appears (10) that DOE wants to truck waste from the decommissioned Ft. St. Vrain nuclear power plant in Ft. Lupton, Colorado, (about 30 miles north of Denver) to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in Idaho Falls, for "long-term storage," and for research purposes. Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus says this is equal to de facto disposal of the waste in Idaho and has blocked shipment through the state. The Governor has also said that for waste to be shipped to Idaho, a $600 million transuranic waste reprocessing plant must be built at INEL, to make the waste safe and as a possible replacement for the facility at Rocky Flats in Colorado, which is under pressure to leave that state. The areas which would store the waste at INEL are located 50 miles from any inhabited towns - on top of a four million year old, 500 foot thick basalt lava flow, in a desert which gets 11 inches of rain in a year. Unfortunately for INEL, which at the moment reprocesses spent- fuel from navy reactors, has a bad safety record itself. In the 1960's millions of gallons of waste were dumped down a deep well drilled through the lava flow thereby contaminating the Snake River aquifer with Tritium, a radioactive element with a half- life of 12 years. The water in the aquifer is used for irrigating Idaho's number one cash crop - potatoes, and for drinking water. INEL officials have gone to great lengths to try to convince the public that there is a distinction between the detection limits of sampling and analysis technology and EPA drinking water standards. They have also pointed out that any Tritium introduced into the lava flows in the 1960s has since decayed to harmless levels. This has not stopped some farmers from being terrified that radioactivity from INEL will affect their crops. No one among the locals trusts DOE to clean up its own act, much less bring new waste to the area and manage it safely. Further, some environmentalists have charged that INEL has not reported all the pollutants released by the reprocessing facility or others. These charges remain unproven, but situation in Idaho was not improved by reports this winter from the DOE Hanford Reservation. These reports say that during the 1940s many people in the State of Washington were exposed to unreported releases of radioactive iodine and may have contracted thyroid cancer as a result. **October 1991** Shipments of SNF from Ft St Vrain to INEL began on October 5th, following a court ruling. Attempts to prevent passage through the nearby Fort Hall Indian Reservation have also failed, despite the actions of tribal police (22). **2nd November 1991** The Fort St Vrain shipments have again been stopped, this time because the DOE failed to apply for a state air quality permit. It is expected that an application will take approx 6 months to a year to be processed (24). **24th March 1992** An Appeal Court Judge has ordered the lifting of the injunction preventing waste movement to INEL. However, the DOE said that it would conduct an environmental assessment of the shipment route from Fort St. Vrain, which is unlikely to be completed by June 1992 at the earliest (48). TRU Wastes; ---------- In the past, this included material such as gloves, protective clothing etc as well as filter sludges and other liquids, which were all grouped together. New examination systems enable true TRU to be separated from LLW. Up until 1970 some 191,000 cu m of such wastes were disposed of in shallow trenches at DOE sites. There are now nearly 62,000 cu m in retrievable storage. Whilst plant to conduct incineration of combustible TRU are under test at INEL, most will be immobilised in either cement or asphalt. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, has been constructed for the disposal of TRU in bedded salt. It is intended to dispose of only those wastes in retrievable storage or newly generated. Originally intended as a pilot facility for commercial and high level waste disposal, it has been a planned site for military TRU only since 1979. As a DOE site it is not subject to NRC licencing, but DOE agreed that it should be subject to EPA standards (not yet formulated) (37). Following initial excavation and development, problems were discovered regarding site suitability, due to the presence of deep brine pockets, under pressure, below the repository. Licencing was suspended subject to further investigation. The test phase, (involving 0.5% of the total inventory of 880,000 drums) was not originally expected to start until at least July 1990. This phase will involve the use of 4,500 drums of waste. **November 1990** The EPA has given the go-ahead for the test-phase at WIPP. Wastes will be closely monitored to see if migration occurs. The permission is contained in a variance of the normal rules, and insist that the waste is stored in a `readily retrievable' form. No handling of wastes is permitted other than for test purposes. The total amount of waste to be used has been set at 8,500 drums over 5 years. Worries over potential problems from gas generation and overpressurisation still persist (5). **18th June 1991** A House of Representatives interior sub-committee has been told by a group of scientists from the General Accounting Office that underground rooms excavated for the 5-year test phase, scheduled to begin later this year, are crumbling so fast that their integrity cannot be guaranteed, and that wastes emplaced there may not be retrievable as required by the test licence. The natural 'creep' of the rocksalt, a property claimed as beneficial to the deep disposal concept, is occurring more rapidly than was predicted. A rockfall in February 1991 involved some 1,400 tonnes of recently rock-bolted salt. The scientist went so far as to suggest that the tests be carried out above ground (30) (37). In September 1991, DOE Secretary James Watkins attempted to overcome the objections to the start-up of the test phase by announcing that shipments would begin in early October. He enacted proceedings to withdraw the land from the Department of the Interior and transfer it to the DOE, which previous legislation had stipulated as necessary prior to operations at the site. The transfer was completed on October 1st (31). **October 8th 1991** Following the transfer of the WIPP site to DOE from Interior, New Mexico officials have announced that they intend to apply for a temporary restraining order in the US District Court, to prevent shipment of waste to the site from INEL. They claim that the administrative land transfer is illegal under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and that DOE has not obtained a hazrdous waste permit from the State. **October 10th 1992** (32) The DOE have postponed the first shipments of waste to WIPP for 6 weeks, to allow the District Court to consider the case put by New Mexico State officials. At the court hearing, officials claimed that the site has "passed none of the standards which apply to a nuclear waste repository...it is presently geologically unstable and cannot be predicted to remain intact." These arguments are in addition to the legal wrangle over land withdrawal. Although DOE plan to begin shipments on November 8th, the judge in the case has scheduled a hearing for November 15th. **26th November 1991** (33) Judge John Penn has ruled that the Interior Secretary exceeded his authority when he transferred the WIPP site to the DOE and that the DOE had failed to prove that wastes stored there during the five-year test phase could be removed safely, if necessary. **4th February 1992** (34) Judge Penn has issued his ruling in the case concerning safety and land withdrawal. He has directed the DOE "to permanently cease all activities" until a hazardous waste permit is obtained from the state. This is anticipated to take up to 18 months. He also ruled that the land transfer must be put on hold until it has been approved by Congress. DOE is expected to appeal against the ruling. Energy Secretary Watkins has indicated that it will be necessary to reduce the number of people involved in the WIPP project, to reduce the estimated $14 million a month overheads bill. There are currently 3 versions of WIPP-related legislation pending in House committees (Armed Services, Interior and Energy and Commerce) which would affect the amounts of waste used in the test-phase and also allow the EPA a greater role in setting waste standards for the site. Watkins prefers the version which has already been approved by the Senate, which does not include the EPA involvement. Members of the House are upset by the DOE attitude and are predicting a long wrangle before any legislation is passed (35). The DOE has responded to the newspaper article mentioned above by trying to get members of the House to sign a letter to the Washington Post, complaining about the misleading nature of the article. The letter fails to mention the recent court ruling on the matter of the waste permit application, or the fact that Bush has been asked by DOE to veto the 3 House bills if they are submitted for approval (36). **June 25th 1992** The President of the National Academy of Sciences has written to the chairmen of the 3 Senate Committees involved in passage of a bill which would allow transfer of WIPP to the DOE, to try and influence voting in next week's debate. This follows release of an NAS panel report which was critical of the DOE's plans for the test phase at WIPP. The report recommended amending the tests to include geological and hydrological conditions, and suggested that the tests on waste material be conducted elsewhere (53). Opponents to WIPP will try to add a number of amendments to the Land Withdrawal Bill, which call i.a. for the EPA to issue standards for WIPP to comply with, prior to it opening; to certify the safety of DOE's testing and to approve a plan to retrieve wastes if the tests fail. The US Bureau of Mines could also be called upon to certify the condition of the mined repository. If the bill is passed, the State of New Mexico must still grant a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This governs the disposal of untreated or uncharacterised hazardous wastes, specifying that they must not be disposed of by land burial unless it can be shown that there will be no migration. Public RCRA meetings are to be held in New Mexico later this year. DOE were granted a 10 year partial exemption for WIPP, to cover the test phase, but must comply for the repository to become fully operational. Miscellaneous HLW issues ------------------------ **February 1991** The Department of Energy and TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc have signed the systems engineering, development and management (SEDM) contract for the DOE's HLW programme, with an estimated value of $1 billion over 10 years. The contract includes the design of both a repository and an MRS (6). **29th April 1992** The DOE has announced that it plans to stop reprocessing spent fuel for the weapons programme, due to decrease in demand for plutonium etc. Work will be phased out at Sanannah River, South Carolina and at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (54). Sources: KH Lin 1990; An Overview of Radioactive Waste Management Technology Development. 1. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace 2. Atoms and Waste US. Jan 91 3. Nucleonics Week 17/01/91 4. Nucleonics Week 24/01/91 5. Nature 15/12/90 6. Nucleonics Week 21/02/91 7. NuclearFuel 21/01/91 8. NuclearFuel 18/02/91 9. Nucleonics Week 14/02/91 10. via Greennet 12/03/91 (written by an anonymous insider at INEL) 11. Abalone Alliance via Greennet 27/03/91 12. Nucleonics Week, 21/11/91 13. UPI via Greenbase 23/08/91 14. UPI via Greenbase 14/11/91 15. Associated Press via Greenbase 23/10/91 16. Environment Daily via Greenbase 06/11/91 17. UPI via Greenbase 23/07/91 18. US Geological Survey Circular 1034 (1989). 19. Keaton JR and Shlemon RJ 1990 20. IPS via Greenbase 03/02/92 21. UPI via Greenbase 13/01/92 22. Associated Press via Greenbase 17/10/91 23. Washington Post via Greenbase 21/10/91 24. Associated Press via Greenbase 03/11/92 25. Environment News Service via Greenbase 06/01/92 26. Environment News Service via Greenbase 07/01/92 27. Nucleonics Week 16/01/92 28. NWTRB 4th Report to the US Congress, December 1991 29. see, for example, New York Times Magazine, 18/11/90 30. The Age, Melbourne via Greenbase 18/06/91 31. Associated Press via Greenbase 03/10/91 32. Washington Post via Greenbase 10/10/91 33. Washington Post via Greenbase 27/11/91 34. Associated Press via Greenbase 04/02/92 35. Thomas Lippman, Washington Post via Greenbase 09/02/92 36. Environet 22/02/92 37. A Makhijani and S Saleska 1991; High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense. Publ. by IEER 38. Nucleonics Week 4/06/92 39. UPI via Greenbase 19/06/92 40. Nucleonics Week 21/05/92 41. UPI via Greennet 15/05/92 42. UPI via Greenbase 19/06/92 43. Sherry Meddick, Greenpeace USA 44. UPI via Greenbase 7/04/92 45. Nucleonics Week 21/05/92 46. UPI via Greenbase 4/03/92 47. UPI via Greenbase 11/05/92 48. Associated Press via Greenbase 24/03/92 49. Questions and Answers about the MRS: Greenpeace USA, April 1992; NuclearFuel 27/04/92 50. Associated Press via Greenbase 15/05/92 51. Washington Post, 28/06/91 52. Greenpeace USA 2/06/92 53. Washington Post 25/06/92 54. Associated Press 29/04/92 55. Reuters, via Greenbase 2/03/92 56. NuclearFuel 27/04/92 57. NuclearFuel 11/05/92 58. UPI via Greenbase 26/05/92 ----------